(mathematics, physics, astronomy) The point at the centre of a system; an average point, weighted according to mass or other attribute. The term is usually used in astronomy for the centre of mass about which a system rotates, for example, the moon and the earth rotate about a common point within the earth but not near the centre. Jupiter and the Sun rotate about a common point just outside the surface of the Sun.

We think that a black hole is an item in space where the gravity is so intense that it can swallow up stars and stop light from escaping, therefore there is a lot of mass at it's centre. We think there is one at the centre of our own galaxy the Milkyway. This item may be technically called a barycentre by astronomers and scientists, it is also colloquially known by the public as a black hole. They are both one and the same thing (whatever they are)

John, you reveal yourself. As I have previously stated you have a great sense of humor, and the people who try to rebut you don't realize your joke.
I am amazed.

betreger,
Sometimes i do say things in a joking or sarcastic manner. But most of the stuff i post is not a joke. I'm very serious when i discuss black holes and my personal view that they don't exist. That is not a joke, i'm very serious about that! Its part of my physics research.

I'm also very serious about the "old book" research i am carrying out. Thats not a joke either. I really am researching an "old book" or "old books" that have very serious implications for humanity.

We think that a black hole is an item in space where the gravity is so intense that it can swallow up stars and stop light from escaping, therefore there is a lot of mass at it's centre. We think there is one at the centre of our own galaxy the Milkyway. This item may be technically called a barycentre by astronomers and scientists, it is also colloquially known by the public as a black hole. They are both one and the same thing (whatever they are)

A barycentre IS a black hole in relation to galaxies Johnney!

Ohhhhhhh.... Chris!
I have to stop you there! Your wrong!!! In Black hole theory, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Astronomers do NOT refer to black holes as Barycenters!!
And theoretical Black holes are very very different to a Barycenter!!

In the Law of the Lever, a weight hangs on both sides of the Fulcrum. This balances the lever. So the fulcrum point is where the Mass of both weights rests. But the fulcrum itself does not have any mass, the mass is in the weights. A Barycenter acts in a similar fashion.

Today, astronomers searching for exoplanets around other stars use the "wobble method" or the "Radial Velocity" to find the exoplanet. The Radial Velocity method shows you what a Barycenter really is. Watch this video and you will see a Barycenter; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BuwWtMygxU

And no Chris, astronomers do NOT describe Black holes as Barycenters! I personally describe Black holes as Barycenters, its my theory. You have never heard it anywhere else but here, from me! A Barycenter completely contradicts current black hole theory! So i stand alone with this theory! You didn't hear it on the telly, you didn't read it on another website, you didn't read it in any book. You only heard it from ME!

But the fulcrum itself does not have any mass, the mass is in the weights. A Barycenter acts in a similar fashion.

So if the black hole you call a barycentre doesn't have any mass itself, how come it appears to swallow stars and light?

A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle.

So if the black hole you call a barycentre doesn't have any mass itself, how come it appears to swallow stars and light?

Thats the thing Chris, it doesn't swallow light, or stars, that is NOT what we "see". Be careful here with what information is REAL scientific data from telescopes, and information that is "theoretical". If the information is "theoretical", then it might or might not exist. In black hole theory, the black hole swallows light, or the light cannot get out. But Chris this has never been observed with a telescope, because you can't observe or measure it. Its just a theoretical assumption. Very dangerous to "assume" anything!!

In reality, what we really see with telescopes, is a Barycenter with nothing in the dead centre. What we also see with telescopes is jets or beams of light being emitted from galactic centres. Right now today, our Milkyway's black hole is emitting very little, its quiet, because no star has fallen into it since they started watching it very closely about 20 years ago.

So in reality, we see stars falling in and disappearing, so where do they go? They are ripped apart and the material from the star is violently smashed together and, instead of magically disappearing into nothing, its ALL converted to energy and emitted out as light, in the form of x-rays, gamma-rays and other light. In other words, what goes in, also comes out. Matter goes in, and pure energy comes out, ALL OF IT!! None of it magically goes missing anywhere! In my theory, you can measure everything!! In my theory nothing goes missing!! And no blind faith in Stephen Hawking's bad black hole mathematics is needed.

Chris i will never get credit for discovering it cos i'm just some guy on a message board. But remember where you heard it first Chris! You heard it from me! On the internet information travels very fast, and my name will just get lost into the oblivion of information on the internet. But anyway, you will know Chris. But just so you know something else, i have left out one key piece of information - the mathametics. And the maths will trip up anyone that tries to latch onto the theory. Right now today, you should be able to discredit my Barycenter theory, if you were clever.

That's only due to the media dumbing-down the story for their monosyllabic childlike readers to follow. It also helps the journalists throw the article together more quickly... Maybe there was such journalistic haste that they got the wrong end of the telescope? Or that particular picture was conveniently 'to hand'? Or there was 'artistic' license in that the telescopes plus sexy-laser "looked more pretty" and "eye catching" than the real news.

All goes with the deliberately ambiguous/misleading headlines...

You want information, or do you want news entertainment?...

Such is the dumb news...

And such is my rant! :-(

Between the news media's usually negative portrayal and the unaware politicians, it's amazing we have any Science at all! And yet our modern society utterly depends upon Science. But that's for another thread...